From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: schedule() && prev/current (Was: [PATCH 3/3] Make get_current() __attribute__((const)))
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 21:07:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100519130709.GA2216@zhy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100519102743.GA10040@redhat.com>
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:27:43PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 23:22 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > And, looking at this patch I think that schedule() can be simplified
> > > a little bit.
> > >
> > > "sched: Reassign prev and switch_count when reacquire_kernel_lock() fail"
> > > commit 6d558c3ac9b6508d26fd5cadccce51fc9d726b1c says:
> > >
> > > Assume A->B schedule is processing,
> > > ...
> > > Then on B's context,
> > > ...
> > > prev and switch_count are related to A
> > >
> > > How so? switch_count - yes, we should change it. But prev must be
> > > equal to B, and it must be equal to current. When we return from
> > > switch_to() registers/stack should be restored correctly, so we
> > > can do
> >
> > What if schedule() got called at a different stack depth than we are
> > now?
> >
> > I don't think we can assume anything about the stack context we just
> > switched to.
>
> Not sure I understand...
>
> OK. Firstly, we shouldn't worry about the freshly forked tasks, they
> never "return" from switch_to() but call ret_from_fork()->schedule_tail(),
> right?
>
> Now suppose that A calls schedule() and we switch to B. When switch_to()
> returns on B's context, this context (register/stack) matches the previous
> context which was used by B when it in turn called schedule(), correct?
>
> IOW. B calls schedule, prev == B. schedule() picks another task, prev
> is saved on B's stck after switch_to(). A calls schedule(), prev == A
> before context_switch(A, B), but after that switch_to() switches to
> B's stack and prev == B.
>
> No?
I think you are right.
>
>
> I am looking into the git history now... and I guess I understand why
> reacquire_kernel_lock() uses current. Because schedule() did something
> like
>
> prev = context_switch(prev, next); // prev == last
>
> finish_task_switch(prev);
>
> reacquire_kernel_lock(current); // prev != current
This is what I think when I wrote that patch. Now the task switch is
entirely finished in context_switch(). So commit log in 6d558c3a has
some flaw in it. The "prev" is also a churn.
Thanks,
Yong
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-19 13:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-18 16:45 [PATCH 1/3] Reduce get_current() to the asm-generic implementation where possible David Howells
2010-05-18 16:45 ` [PATCH 2/3] Mark the 'current' pointer register read-only when such a thing exists David Howells
2010-05-18 21:05 ` David Miller
2010-05-18 16:45 ` [PATCH 3/3] Make get_current() __attribute__((const)) David Howells
2010-05-18 21:22 ` schedule() && prev/current (Was: [PATCH 3/3] Make get_current() __attribute__((const))) Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-19 6:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-19 10:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-19 10:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-05-19 12:57 ` [PATCH] schedule: simplify the reacquire_kernel_lock() logic Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-19 12:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-19 13:11 ` Yong Zhang
2010-05-19 13:07 ` Yong Zhang [this message]
2010-05-19 13:07 ` schedule() && prev/current (Was: [PATCH 3/3] Make get_current() __attribute__((const))) Yong Zhang
2010-05-18 17:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] Reduce get_current() to the asm-generic implementation where possible Kyle McMartin
2010-05-18 19:47 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-05-19 6:21 ` Nick Piggin
2010-05-19 11:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-05-21 10:13 ` David Howells
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100519130709.GA2216@zhy \
--to=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).